CNN Democratic Primary Debate: The LiveBlog

Well, it's that time again. Tonight is the night of the second debate for the Democratic candidate field. Surreal, isn't it? For those of you who don't recall, the first debate of the 2004 primary season was in September of '03. Here we are, in June, getting ready for the second debate of this season.

5:36pm: My keen political crystal balls tell me that this bodes very badly for the political talking heads which are currently gracing my television. Heck, they're already starting to repeat themselves; can they come up with enough material to last for the extra four months of coverage they're going to have to fill?

5:53pm: Chris Dodd's already ahead on the cool points scale this evening. I picked up from Chris Bowers at MyDD that Dodd's crackerjack online team has a live graph of how much time each candidate is given tonight. Considering how much (probably rightly so) the "underdog" candidates complain about not getting as much time as the top tier candidates, that should be worth observing.

6:00: Well, if you're just tuning in, you may have missed the fireworks for the evening. In a very polite candidate lineup (a good thing! Really!), the feistiest it gets are Democratic and Republican pundits telling each other how stupid each side is before the debates start. Now? Time for Wolf Blitzer.

6:02: Ooh — an interesting clause in the rules. Answers have to stay on topic to the question! I guess that means we're not going to get two hours of Iraq rants from Gravel. That makes me cry just a little inside. Obama gets the first question.

6:04: No terrorist attacks since 9/11; could it be that Bush's tactic has worked? Obama's instant answer: no. (Of course!) Bush has made us less safe, not more; phase out war in Iraq; focus on critical battle in Afghanistan w/al Quaeda. Does Bush deserve any credit? They've done well in stopping financial networks, but haven't involved other countries in solution.

6:06: Edwards next: are we at war with the terrorists? Have to do everything we can to deal with terrorism, but the "war on terror" is a bumper sticker, a Bush slogan. Clinton, of course, does her hard-line thing and disagrees. "I am a Senator from New York." I personally hate the "war on terror" line, so I'm biased — wars have win conditions. What is the win condition for this one, Senator?

6:08: Kucinich quotes Franklin — I thought that was Jefferson; guess I'm wrong — "those who would give up up a little liberty for their security deserve neither." Pushes his "9/10" plan, to revive the spirit that America had before the attack. (I don't think he mentioned that one in his interview with us. Anyone heard of this before?)

6:10: Biden asked, since he voted against the war, why everybody else was wrong. "I won't tell you why they're wrong; I'll tell you why they're right." Wolf asks him why: "I won't judge me; they're all my friends." Woot. Let Republicans eat their young. We don't need to. Clinton gives some props back, and then draws the R/D line: "everybody on the stage is against the war; in a few days, you'll have Republicans here, and everybody there supports the war, and supports the President." Ron Paul's going to be writing her a tersely worded letter.

6:12: Richardson continues the "us v. them" with Republicans. Ouch! Edwards takes the first swing. Points out that Clinton and Obama did vote for the bill, but arrived near the end of the debate, didn't speak for timetables, and just cast a vote: "there's a difference between leadership and legislating." Zing! Obama fires back: "you're four and a half years late on leadership." And, surprisingly (or maybe not), Clinton wins the high ground. Points out that it's Bush's war, and that there are things outside of the floor of the Senate where influence can be had, and they're all on the same side — the differences are comparatively minor. Edwards gets a response back; says, yes, it's Bush's baby, but the differences between us are also important. Dodd follows, and changes the subject; points out that everybody is in agreement that there is no military victory to be had. Richardson asked about our responsibility in Iraq; he also tries to differentiate himself from the pack, stating an effort to deauthorize the war. (That sort of differentiation sort of strikes me as Republicans "differentiating" themselves by saying that, no, really, I'm the real conservative candidate. Am I alone in that?) Gravel: where do you disagree with the positions presented so far? "Totally." War may be Bush's, but facilitated by Democrats. Our staying is like the Domino Theory in Vietnam; that was an incorrect premise, just like the premise for being in Iraq now — that conflict is maintained by the Iraqis. Kucinich: "this war was based on lies." Says it could be productive if everybody on the stage agreed to stand up and end the war. Follows Gravel in kicking Clinton while she's down: "she says it's Bush's war; no, there's a teachable moment here." That's definitely a popular stance, at least; many people were disappointed with what looked like the Democratic backpedal in Congress. Biden gets Clinton's back a little; points out, no, people here can't actually end the war — we need 67 votes to do that. The one person emboldening the enemy is Bush.

6:25: Next series of questions is on not having read the intelligence briefings. Clinton says she feels she was well-informed in her decision, but Bush should've let them send weapons inspectors like Congress wanted. Edwards pointed out that he was on the intelligence committee, so he was briefed; also commends Obama for being against the war from the beginning; "he was right, I was wrong." Says it's important to recognize that. Obama thanks him; asked if having voted for the war was "a disqualifier," and says that no, it's not. Gravel, of course, disagrees; says people knew there were two sets of intelligence going around. "Not bad people; just lack moral judgement." Clinton answers that she regrets... having believed George Bush when he said he'd rely on the inspectors. (Deja vu: "I move to vacate... the chamber for lunch." Thanks, Rep. Thompson!)

6:30: Moving on — Richardson first, on immigration: how is granting legal status not amnesty? He says he's not for any legislation that will divide families, wants to enforce employer rules. Wolf insists on the question: most people would be eligible for the Z visa; how is that not amnesty? Says, again, have to meet his basic criteria; it's not amnesty because there is no automatic legalization, it's a process by which those who work for it can earn the chance to be citizens. Biden, asked about his vote for the fence, actually agrees with Richardson that the fence won't help immigration (says the bill has a much shorter fence to help with the drug trafficking issue, not immigration), points out: how are you going to get 14 million people back? "People, being President requires you at times to be practical." Yuks all around. Obama goes farther, saying we can reduce the number of people coming in, while recognizing that the problem of the people that are here needs to be handled by a way other than kicking everybody out.

6:36: Wolf trying to cause trouble: should English be the official language of the United States? Gravel is the only one that says yes. Obama gets two points, denies the premise: "that's the sort of question that is made specifically to divide us; we should be concentrating on effective solutions." Good job! Clinton follows; also points out that though it may be a national language, saying it's the official language makes it so you can't do things like print ballots in Spanish.

6:39: Now on health care. Edwards asked if it's honest to promise health care without raising taxes? Points out that his would be paid by rolling back Bush's tax cuts for those who make over $200,000; but can't pretend (like Republicans do) that we can help Americans and shrink the budget at the same time. Wolf goes to Obama, mentioning that Edwards stated he didn't believe Obama's plan was truly universal. Obama says there's a lot of overlap in plans, and that's a good thing, but doesn't believe that it has to be mandatory for everyone to be universal. Clinton gets asked about taxes; points out that the savings in plans from electronic records, prevention, etc. are estimated to be about the same as the cost of the plan. Question is, how do we realize those savings? Have to be strong when they're inevitably assailed by insurance and drug companies who profit off the current system. Richardson says, yes, we can do it without raising taxes. Dodd points out that it's not truly a "quick fix" problem. Back to Edwards, points out that it is estimated that Obama will leave 15 million Americans uninsured, and that Clinton's savings are also in his and Obama's plans. Obama agrees with the second bit; disagrees with the first (of course!), saying that the reason Americans don't have it is because they can't afford it, so that's what you fix; make it affordable and let people choose to be covered; Edwards would have gaps in coverage too. Edwards caught unawares, mentioning that children can't make that choice, and Obama points out that his plan has mandatory coverage for children. Ooh! Kucinich gets applause! Says he rejects the premise behind the Big Three's approach; the only way to have a fair system is to have a universal, single-payer, not-for-profit plan; he's written the bill, and now we just need a President willing to stand up to companies. Crowd eats it up.

6:49: Clinton: was "don't ask, don't tell" a mistake? Says it was the compromise we could get at the time, but believes in Goldwater's quote, "you don't have to be straight to shoot straight." Yeah, this is a softball question for Democrats. Biden takes the easy shot at the DADT program. Everybody asked if DADT should be gotten rid of; everyone raises their hands. Richardson concurs with everybody. Edwards asked the harder question: New Hampshire just passed civil unions. Is it the time to go farther and allow gay marriage? Believes that's the decision states should make for themselves; we should stand up against intolerance. Believes it's not the president's role to legislate, but to lead. I think he's trying to get across a message; hmm, I wonder what that is?

6:54: Gravel asked, if you were President, what would you do with former Pres. Clinton? Send him around as athletic ambassador (? Ouch!), along with his wife, who'd still be in the Senate (double ouch!); he could do well with supervision. Richardson says he'd be great as UN Secretary General, but that's probably not doable; he could be used and is needed in the Middle East. Obama points out that the answers point to Pres. Clinton's strength in foreign policy, and how we need to repair the damage Bush has done in foreign relations. Sen. Clinton's apparently fascinated by the question; states that she believes in using past presidents, and that Pres. Clinton would be useful in foreign relations as a "roving ambassador."

6:58: Dodd asked about rising gas prices. Mentions we have an opportunity that strong leadership could take advantage of; lowering our dependence on oil gives us the potential to grow the alternative fuels industry. Says you'd lower the price by lowering demand, and once oil tops $40/bbl, taking the additional profit and either giving rebates or investing that in alternative fuels. Gravel specifies there's nothing he'd do to lower the prices; we have to move towards less use. (True, but I can't imagine that phrasing will be very popular.) Richardson asked, as the previous Secretary of Energy. States that his state considers itself the Clean Energy State; wants an Apollo Project for alternative energy, in his program which is rated the strongest by the League of Conservation Voters. Biden names smaller domestic policies he'd enact, like raising the mandatory auto gas mileage. Time for a 3-minute break, so talking heads can explain what we've just seen since we're clearly not capable of understanding ourselves. (Read: media spin.)

7:10: After a very long three minutes of "the best political news team" (sic) telling us how nice and civil everyone was, and pointing out some of the surprises and not-so-hidden zingers, it's time for questions from the crowd. Of course, the first question is on the war. Asking what would be done to rebuild the military. It's given to Kucinich, who goes off on how we need to bring the troops back. Gotta love that crazy peacenik. Steered back to the question, he does state that the military needs to be strong, but that the budget could be cut. Wolf then asks Obama about how he wants to increase its size, and why he disagrees with Kucinich. Points out the difference between cutting military size and cutting funding, and how advanced weapons systems can save money. Dodd is asked if there are any such military relics that he would cut. Dodd must have been run through the wringer training for this, because his answers have been solid: points out that, first and foremost, everyone on the stage is immensely proud and appreciative of the work the troops have done; round of applause from the candidates. Very nice; way to raise all ships, Sen. Dodd.

7:16: Obama asked about military health care. Points out that the VA has done a solid job with what they're given, points to drug price negotiations, which Medicare isn't allowed to do — a gross mistake. (Way to sneak in that tangent.) Veterans should, if going to VA hospitals is a hardship, be able to go to regular hospitals as well. Richardson says, no exceptions, veterans should be able to go to any hospital they want. Gravel says he actually gets his drugs from his VA benefits, and he's satisfied, but that the government has always waged war against veterans' rights, and that clearly the government knew about the Walter Reed situation before the Washington Post broke the story. Obama says, well, we tried oversight, we tried giving the VA more funding, and the President refused; and no, we would visit Walter Reed, but didn't get to see the parts that were in such disarray.

7:22: Question on U.S. relations with Iran; Clinton answers, points out her husband's efforts to reach out, and that we need to start those conversations; will it always go flawlessly? no, but it has to be done. But Iran can't be allowed to get the bomb. Then asked, worst case, what to do if Iran gets the bomb, refuses to go into hypotheticals because we haven't been using diplomacy in the first place. Also takes a pretty amusing jab at Cheney; "sending him to foreign countries — I hardly think that counts as diplomacy." Edwards points out that there were massive rallies of support in Iran for Americans after 9/11. When pressed on the worst-case scenario, says no responsible president would take any option off the table. Biden, asked same question, points out that Iran is far, far away from having that ability; but if they had a missile on a pad pointed at us, yes, you take it out. Gravel, surprisingly, does not take a swing at him for saying that.

7:27: Clinton asked about relations with Pakistan. The question was by a history professor, if you're wondering where such a politics-wonk question came from. Again, the answer revolves around cooperation with foreign nations; points out that such ideas were floated to Bush, who refused them. Kucinich asked if, given a chance to kill Bin Laden with a Hellfire missile, but some innocent lives would be lost in the process, what would you do? Kucinich, of course, says he doesn't believe in "assassination politics," and that if we want to work towards peace, we don't do that. In the last second there, points out what he should've pointed out first: it also opens the door to assassination being used against us. Obama gives the dissent, saying, well, if you have the chance to do that for a terrorrist, international law says you can take him out, and you do so swiftly and decisively. On the raise-your-hands question on whether you would do it, Kucinich is the only one that doesn't raise his hand; Clinton, however, points out that that's one of those dangerous hypotheticals on a situation that would have to be handled very carefully. Edwards goes back to the original question, with reconciling Musharraf in Pakistan with the desire for democracy, saying we don't just go with democracy for democracy's sake, but look for respect for certain basic principles.

7:35: Clinton takes Wolf to task! Question was asked on the genocide in Darfur, and Biden mentioned how he went to the UN to encourage involvement there; then Wolf pushed on details of Sudan and the no-fly zone, and Clinton again shot down the premise, saying that it is the task of a president to take careful, reasoned approaches to those things, and it benefits no one to indulge in those nebulous out-there hypotheticals. On the general question of force in Sudan, Richardson says, no, that bottom-line won't work; you can't just force them into that sort of thing. Edwards mentions he disagrees, and that you leave all options on the table, but respects their vocal response, because it touches on the bigger problem that we've lost our international legitimacy to do that sort of thing. Obama goes on, saying that we lose legitimacy when we use Guantanamo, when we suspend habeas corpus, and that sort of thing. Biden, though, gets all fired up. "By the time these guys all talk, 50,000 more people are going to be dead." We put in the no-fly zone, and that stops the killings. Applause (under which is buried Obama's statement that no one disagrees with the no-fly zone). Richardson gets the wrap-everybody's-points-in-a-bow roundup on the topic.

7:40: A recent high school graduate mentions his recent stint with a family in Germany whose son was just about to finish his year of mandatory service in the military. Gravel, asked what he thinks of that, says that he prefers encouraging public service — military or otherwise — and in exchange giving you four years in college for free in exchange. Kucinich says the same, saying mandatory service misses the point — you want to inspire people into wanting to give something back to your country. Dodd also concurs.

7:43: A father of a soon-to-be student asks about stretches to get their kids in college, and asks about these new programs, all of which sound good, and paying by rolling back tax cuts on the rich; he asks, "what is rich?" Asks for an actual financial level. Obama answers first, and doesn't give one; instead generalizes on the benefits of the economy not being spread equally, and fairness going back into the system. Wolf insists on a number for the rollbacks. Obama says $250,000. But says his starting point is not "how do I tax people?" but "am I spending the money we have wisely?" Snipes at earmarks. (Has he not had any? Could be, but seems unlikely, I think.) Edwards says, like he said before, his number is $200,000, and then goes on to also state other programs that he thinks would ease the burden on parents of college students.

7:47: We are now once again running a huge deficit. Is that a problem? How do we address it? Does it get addressed on the spending side, or the income side? Richardson: I am a governor. I have to balance budgets all the time. Cost controls to reduce deficit, as well as growing the economy. "I'm a pro-growth Democrat." If the economy grew 1.8% instead of 1.3%, the Social Security solvency problem is solved. Kucinich asked a follow-up on how Democrats get pinned at the big-tax, big-spend party. Kucinich says we shouldn't be borrowing money in China to run an unnecessary war; prevents us from having a foreign policy that respects human rights because of financial concerns. Gets applause on that. Wants to stop wasting money, and create new wealth, especially with a growing alternative energy market.

7:51: A question from a blogger: would candidates pledge to veto any bill with earmarks? Sen. Dodd: would you give up earmarks for Connecticut? Says yes, spending is out of control; they should go away in all but the very rare cases where they're necessary. (When would that be? I honestly have no clue.) Gravel also thinks they should also all go away. Clinton pulls out the hubby again: "we should keep in mind that six years ago, we had a balanced budget and a surplus... we're going to have to do the hard work again." Applause. Gravel snipes back, that we balanced the budget by raiding $200M of Social Security money. Kucinich points out that, well, the real problem is the strong hold interest groups have over government. Biden says, that's right, and if you want to get rid of that, the only way to do that is to go to public funding of elections. More applause.

7:56: What is your top priority for the first hundred days? Edwards: travel the word, reestablish our standing of respect in foreign policy, encourage a message of a moral commitment to humanity. Clinton: Bring our troops home. Obama: Same; next priority: health care. Richardson: no one has talked about education. Reform education; increase teacher pay, emphasize civics and art, etc. Biden: End the war, immediately move to defuse war in Iran, then defuse Korean peninsula. Thanks to this President, the next President has no margin of error in these delicate situations. Kucinich: we can end the war now. Move toward a foreign policy not based on military strength. Gravel: I can do it now; turn to these people and tell them to take their position of leadership and end the war. Dodd: restore the civil liberties that this administration has taken from us. (Nice!)

8:00: Wolf tells us about the next debate, sponsored in part by Google and YouTube, and the debate's over! Yeay! Time for the talking heads!

8:02: An oopsie earlie from the CNN crew: pointing out that the candidates' significant others were joining them, but how absent from that were Elizabeth Edwards and Bill Clinton. About a minute later, I see Elizabeth Edwards on stage. Hey, apparently they're making up for it: now Larry King is interviewing Elizabeth. She does great on Edwards message control: he wasn't "taking it to" the other candidates; he was answering in an honest fashion, sometimes complimentary, sometimes not. Gives shouts out to the other wives on the campaign trail. One hell of a lady right there.

8:06: Now speaking to a Clinton spokesperson, and they're bringing out the racy clips of the debate so that spinsters can spin them. As much fun as watching that always is — no, I lie, that's hell. I think that signals the end of this liveblog. Feel free to continue the discussion on talking-head performance and the quality of the spin in the spin room in our comments. Thanks for following along with us, guys.